Many companies, and specifically electronic and semiconductor device companies, produce products that must be tested to meet various specifications before the products can be shipped to customers. These test operations often include a variety of different test activities in a variety of different environments. Existing systems do not currently provide for efficient test configuration and data management among these disparate test operations, particularly on an enterprise-wide scale.
With respect to data management, test systems (also referred to herein as test stations and/or ATEs (automated test equipment)) have previously included the ability to store test result data from a unit-under-test (UUT) on the test systems. In addition, test sites have also previously included the ability to store centrally raw test data from a number of different test systems for historical purposes. FIG. 1A (prior art) shows an example of such an environment. Local test systems 106A, 106B . . . 106C are coupled through connections 114A, 114B . . . 144C to UUTs 116A, 116B . . . 116C, respectively. Looking at test system 106A as an example, each test system includes test software 112A, which operates the test being run on the UUT, and includes test management software 10A, which acts to manage the tests executed by the test software 112A. The raw test result data for the UUT can be stored in the local test systems 106A, 106B . . . 106C. In addition, this raw test data can be archived for historical purposes in a raw data archival system 102 through manual or direct data storage transfers as represented by dotted lines 115A, 115B . . . 115C, respectively.
With respect to connectivity, test stations or automated test equipment devices (ATEs) are often located on test floors that do not have network connections or that are configured in such a way as to make network connections to the ATEs rather difficult or impossible. In addition, many ATEs are designed to conduct specific tests that may be unrelated and unlinked to other device tests or manufacturing activities. Thus, test monitoring has previously focused on the individual test systems and has not adequately addressed enterprise level test monitoring and management. In addition, disparate tests and test stations typically do not have common data formats, but instead are often custom designed software packages that are interested in nothing but the operations of the particular test being run. Thus, if data is stored, it is often stored simply as a text file or in a proprietary format specific to the designer of the system. Although such raw test data has been stored centrally so that it can be retrieved at a later time for historical analysis, this raw test data is typically not formatted in any standard manner or managed such that it can be used as testing is in progress.
Tools have been previously developed to help connect test applications to other computers through a network, such as the LABVIEW enterprise connectivity toolset available from National Instruments. These tools allow connectivity to a database. However, these tools require the user to define the databases, communicate with them (usually through SQL commands) and program all the details about communication, database design and anything related to the database operations. As such, these tools do not provide an efficient and easily managed solution for configuring and managing enterprise test operations.
This need for systems to provide efficient test configuration and data management for test operations is distinct from a need for systems to monitor and manage manufacturing operations. Manufacturing execution systems (MES) have been developed that focus on controlling the execution of a manufacturing process including actions such as keeping track of materials, products, work in progress, etc. However, these MES systems are not directed to test operations. Example MES products are those that are sold under the trade names QFS available from Automation Programming, Inc. (API) and Xfactory available from USDATA. Such systems allow for the management of information about the manufacturing of the products. They are directed to a manufacturing point of view and are not directed to a testing point of view. Thus, such systems fall short on managing the test data and test results thereby making difficult the task of finding specific data about a test, and do not provide mechanisms to maintain configuration information about each test station or any tests run on each test station. In addition, such existing systems do not provide capabilities to monitor the test stations (or ATEs) and the data related to the ATEs. Without a direct connection between the ATEs and a server system, it is extremely difficult and complex to attempt to create software code that allows such capabilities.